Settlement Commission lacks jurisdiction for gold cases under Customs Act - High Court decision

The High Court held that the Settlement Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 127B concerning goods covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically gold. Despite the respondent's arguments and reliance on prior court decisions, the Court emphasized the statutory bar preventing settlement of cases involving such goods. The Court found the Settlement Commission's decision to be legally incorrect and set it aside, ruling in favor of the Revenue's writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain an application under Section 127B relating to goods covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The High Court was approached by the Revenue seeking the quashing of an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent had brought gold into India and made an application for settlement under Section 127B of the Act. The main contention raised was that the Settlement Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application due to the express bar in the third proviso to Section 127B(1) read with Section 123 of the Act. The Court noted that the third proviso clearly prohibits applications for settlement in cases related to goods covered under Section 123, which includes gold. Despite this, the Settlement Commission entertained the application, prompting the Revenue to challenge the jurisdictional aspect.

The Court examined the relevant provisions of Section 127B(1) and Section 123 of the Act. It emphasized that the third proviso to Section 127B(1) restricts the Settlement Commission from entertaining applications concerning goods falling under Section 123, such as gold. The Court highlighted that the respondent's case involved gold, making it ineligible for settlement under Section 127B. The Court agreed with the Revenue's argument that the Settlement Commission lacked jurisdiction to consider the application due to the clear statutory bar outlined in the provisions.

The respondent attempted to rely on previous court decisions to support their position, but the Court distinguished those cases by emphasizing that the issue of Section 123's applicability had not been addressed in those judgments. The Court clarified that the third proviso to Section 127B(1) specifically prohibits applications related to goods covered under Section 123, like gold. Therefore, the rejection of the Revenue's plea by the Settlement Commission was deemed legally incorrect. The Court concluded that the impugned order by the Settlement Commission was without jurisdiction and set it aside, allowing the writ petition filed by the Revenue.

---